Skip to main content

About this Show

Washington Journal

News/Business. Live morning call-in program with government officials, political leaders, and journalists.




San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 91 (627 MHz)






Boehner 57, Washington 25, Paul Ryan 14, America 14, John Boehner 11, New York 9, U.s. 9, Us 9, Chris Chocola 9, C-span 8, New Jersey 7, Mitch Mcconnell 7, Obama 7, Cdc 7, Ron Paul 6, Chris Christie 6, Marco Rubio 6, Chuck Hagel 5, Mccarthy 5, Mercury 5,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    Washington Journal    News/Business. Live morning call-in program with  
   government officials, political leaders, and journalists.  

    January 9, 2013
    7:00 - 10:00am EST  

club for growth and their perspective on the federal budget in congress for it later, robert costa will discuss his recent pieces on house speaker john boehner and we will look at today's news and take your calls, e-mails, and tweets next on "washington journal." host: good morning on this wednesday, january 9, 2013. some headlines. senator thune instagram says no answers on what happened in benghazi in, then no john brenan likely for the cia. and secretary clinton will testify. 2012 was the u.s.'s warmus year by far. the obama administration plans to cut u.s. forces in afghanistan by more than half during the next 16 months.
we will start this morning on the domestic front. you have seen the headlines about the heightened volume of flu this year and the decision of some health care workers not to get vaccinated, a choice that has cost some of them their jobs. what are your thoughts on mandated vaccinations for health care workers? all others can call in, 202-585- 3882. yuka post your thoughts on facebook, twitter, or e-mail us . dr. anthony fauci is the director of the national institutes of allergy and infectious diseases, joining us on the phone. the houston chronicle headline this morning -- what is going on?
guest: you never know why, with influenza. it's unpredictable accept that we have a flu season every year. what we are seeing this year and what is spurring the headlines is the way this started off earlier than usual with a strain of flu that is a bad sprain in the sense that it's making people more ill than some other strains, we are on the way to what looks like as bad a year as we have had since 2003 and 2004. flu seasons usually get really going in january. this started to increase at the very beginning of december. the trajectory of the number of cases and severity of the cases is such that it looks quite comparable or at least as comparable or maybe a little worse than what we saw 10 years ago. host: how does your institute and the center for disease control, how are you tracking
this, how are you able to know this particular strand is as bad as it is? guest: the cdc, which is based in atlanta, is the main agency of the federal government and in the world who does disease striking, so they have capabilities of determining the relative percentage of visits in different types of clinics throughout the country that are related to what we call influenza-like illnesses. then they do testing among them to determine if it actually is influenza or if it is another type of respiratory infection. what they have shown from the beginning of all this, like i said, which started at the end of november and beginning of december, is that we are having an upsurge in the number of percentages of visits that are related to influenza-like illness. they have successfully identified what kind of influence it is and they know exactly what the strain is.
that is important, because one of the things in this mass of sobering news is good news that the influenza strains that are circulating throughout society in the united states are very well matched to the vaccine that has been distributed. that is a very powerful argument for getting vaccinated against flu, even though we are in january. it is not too late to get vaccinated. host: some papers and purported is the h2n2, so you can track the number. then what does the government do with this information? guest: first of all, you mentioned the national institutes of health and the cbc does the tracking and identification of the strain and is very influential in months ahead of time signaling what should be in the vaccine. the nih is a resort organization. we do research on influenza and
understanding pathogenesis and developing drugs against it and helping along with pharmaceutical companies to develop a vaccine. that's what we do in collaboration is init and then try to make countermeasures against it in the form of treatment and prevention. host: how much does all that cost? guest: a lot of money. if you just look at the research, the nih spends every year about $260 million on influence of research. in addition, we are continually trying to make better vaccines, including vaccines that might be good for all strains. the cdc also spends tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars in their tracking and surveillance of influenza throughout the country. so it is a very serious issue which should not be taken lightly. on any given year there is wide variability, but it can go from a few thousand deaths to up to 49,000 deaths in the u.s. each
season has 200 hospitalizations and $285 billion in economic cost. this is a serious issue appeared that the reason we both track it and develop countermeasures. host: a $25 billion cost to home? -- whom? guest: it is lost work, a political cause, it's because of positions, it's the cost of the medicines, it ais the loss of work and children missing school, people missing work, etc. host: we're asking our viewers if there should be amanda terkel vaccine for health care professionals. the cdc, which is the agency that would make that type of mandatory provision, they just recommended health care officials. they've been doing that since
1981. that is not the purview of your agency. but as the federal government ever, in other types of viruses, said everybody must get vaccinated for x,y, and z. there's never an always with regard to the public. schools are vaccinated and it's usually not at the federal level. it's usually at the local level. the only time you have something on the federal level, for example, when troops go into areas -- these are federal u.s. military -- going into areas where it is very important for them to be protected, that is mandatory, unless there's a good health reason not to do it. so it's a very unusual situation when you have a federal mandate to do that. that is usually something, that if it is required, is required at the local level. the cdc, being the predominant
health and surveillance and public health agency for the federal government, makes recommendations, but they don't mandate. host: historic in the washington times. the headline is -- it says, how do we adequately respond? is there a role for the federal government to respond to the number of outbreaks that we are seeing? guest: the federal government is very much involved. the cbc is an extraordinary agency that does tracking, that provides in certain situations where vaccinations, for example with individual that don't have access to vaccination, the n.i.h plays a major role in development of vaccines. if you are asking does the federal government have a role or make a contribution to the
tracking, control, and treatment and prevention of influenza? the answer is yes. they invest a considerable amount of resources. host: let's go back to your role in coming up with some sort of concoction of this vaccination. how do you determine that? guest: it is interesting that when you get a seasonal -- every know, very productive. this year looks like it will be severe. when you look back currencies no influenza, you can get a pretty good deal of what we're going to have this year in our winter. in january, perry, descender, etc., by what was going on in the southern hemisphere in their winter, which was equivalent to what our summer was this past summer. for example, in june, july, august, of 2012. it usually makes that kind of cycle. if something is going to change
from one-year to another, you really keep an eye out on what has gone on in the southern hemisphere the season before. there were inklings that we were going to have the h3n2 influenza a in our winter. it's a combination of the cdc, w.h.o, and other organizations that do the tracking. and they make an intelligent guess well into the previous year about what kind of vaccine they will put into their vaccine combination, manufacture, and make available to vaccinate people starting in their very early fall, of which is the time when vaccinations start. in happens that this year, which is usually but not always the case, it was absolutely correctly chosen. so the pick of what would going to the vaccine this year exactly matched what we are having a problem with, with the influence of that is now circulating throughout the united states. host: how many different strands
of the plants are there? guest: if you look at the ones we are concerned about in any given season, there are three. there are two types of the influenza a that circulate. it's called h3n2, which is the one we are dealing with now. then there is h1n1, which was the one that a couple years ago in 2009 we had that pandemic of that influenza. so there are two types of common a's. and then there is an influenza b, which is a little different. and there are few types of that one. when you give a vaccine, you give three components. b andgainst the influenza a one for each of the a's. it's not only an infection of human beings. animals get it. sometimes it jumps from animal to human.
some people may be familiar with what has gone on for years in southeast asia, the h5n1 bird flu which kills a lot of chickens and really affects humans, but there's the possibility it might acquire the ability to infect humans more readily than it does. that is why we are always on guard for the eruption or the evolution of a different kind of simple ones that we're not used to and that we don't have a vaccine ready for. host: that brings me to does the vaccine protect you against the full 100%? guest: there's no vaccine that has ever been made that protect you against a particular target 100%. there are some really good vaccines like polio and smallpox go way into the 90%. the influenza vaccine, the protection various. the closeness of the match
between the vaccine and the circulating strain, the strains differ from season to season. if we get really good match, the protection in a young, no person could be as high as 80% or 90%. the older you get, if you are 65 or older, vaccines are less productive, more to the tune of 50% and maybe 60%. it varies not only with the match of the vaccine to the circulating strain but it very to the person getting vaccinated. older people less so than younger people. host: i know you need to run, but one last question for you. can you eradicate the flu? guest: i don't think we will ever be able to eradicate it from this planet for the simple reason that it is a disease, is a virus that infects many animals, particularly waterfall, birds, etc. and there's that continuing jumping from species where adapts itself to the humans.
although you never say never or never say always, i would say with some degree of confidence that we will never be able to eradicate influence from the planet. host: thank you very much for setting up a conversation with our viewers this morning. guest: you're welcome. host: you heard from dr. anthony fauci, the role of the program at in tracking and preventing. his agency working on the vaccinations in coordination with pharmaceutical companies. so we turn to all of you. should there be a mandatory flu vaccination for health care professionals? that is what is making the headlines lately. it is mandated by some hospitals, most hospitals, and other health facilities. and some states are going ahead with legislation as well. looking at legislation. rhode island passed a piece of legislation ahead of this flu season to require the vaccination. margaret is up first in
albuquerque, new mexico, democratic caller. thanks for waiting. go ahead. caller: i do not believe in vaccination. i certainly don't believe in giving -- requiring vaccinations. as a health-care worker, i used to work in hospitals. i will leave the hospital that it was required, because i have learned so much about what is in vaccinations and how little they protect people. i would hope c-span would have someone on like researchers who have done a lot of studies on vaccinations and their adverse effects and to provide an opposite view. host: margaret, that's why we are talking to all of you, because we are trying to get different viewpoints from people across the country. what is in these vaccinations? caller: i have some information here about what is in vaccines. for instance, the influenza
virus vaccination, types a and b are produced using formaldehyde, paula sorbates 80, paula phosphates -- polysorbate 80, polyphosphates, and monkey parts and aborted fetus tissue. crossing monkey kidney cells or chicken cells, we are crossing species. host: where did you get this information? caller: this one came from the internet. there was a web site also, a lot of information i got is from neilzmill z. miller, his
book called "vaccinations: are they really effective?" host: how many hospitals have you had to leave? host: just one. i was not a nurse. i was in administration. people in every field, administration, custodial, social work, all kinds of professions in this institution were required in this hospital to get vaccinations. so i left and went to another hospital. host: for the nurses, doctors, people that actually work with patients, a doctor of mount sinai hospital in canada says --
caller: i give credit to c-span. that is one viewpoint, but there are other viewpoints and there's a lot of research on the damage that vaccinations do to everyone, not just health care workers, but people in the hospital. the research is very slim on the benefits. for instance, on this one web site called swin, one manufacturer vaccine inserts as the immune response and safety was only evaluated on 31 children between ages of 26 and 21. host: i will have to leave it there so i can get some other voices in on the conversation. on twitter --
claudia and florida, you are owners. by the way, we have a fourth line set aside for health care professionals. we just lost her. darn. if you are health care professionals, dial in, because we want to hear your thoughts. walter is an independent caller in new jersey. caller: how are you? just like what the doctor was saying, if you are older, you have a 50% chance if you are over 60 something. i don't think those numbers are that great. health care professionals or
anybody, like my sister is an is a nurse and she does not catch the flu. host: if you get vaccinated and then you have to go for something else to the hospital and the nurses treating you is not vaccinated, then the chance of getting it is greater? caller: there are so many other issues, that would not matter. host: some say why not try to prevent it? caller: i don't think anybody should be demanding. dr. oz cannot give those to his family or take them himself. host: that was altered in new jersey. we will go next to david in shenandoah, virginia, democratic
caller. >caller: good morning. i think health care professionals should have mandatory flu vaccines. host: why? caller: if they are going to be working on six people come -- on six pck people, is a must. i had the flu many years ago and i was bad off, so i am definitely for it. host: on facebook -- we're turning to all of you because of the headlines in the papers we have been seeing lately. mandatory to vaccinations for health care professionals. it was the front page of usa today about the high volume of flu yesterday. 29 states report high flu-like
activity. at least 18 children have reportedly died from it. and in the opinion section yesterday --
he's calling for encouragement but not a mandate. tony in capitol heights, maryland, independent caller. caller: good morning. i don't agree anything should be mandatory. i am a veteran, go to the va for my annual checkup. i had a doctor who was trying to persuade me to get the flu shot and i told them i did not take it because it had merit in it. he said, yes, they have had to retreat in them for preservative reasons. i'm sure you could find a less
toxic substance to use for preservative instead of mercury. i don't understand why you need something so toxic. the thing about these diseases, these viruses, a lot of them are being manufactured in labs, like the one in fort detrick. a lot of these epidemics come from labs. every time investigations get close to these things being created in laboratories, the reporting shutdown and then they come out with these soft kill viruses -- or rather vaccines that do more damage to people and protect them. done there's been research and the vaccination and
they say it prevents people from getting it up to a certain percentage point and also read from dr. fauci that when we get the flu as a country, it costs us $25 billion in lost economic productivity and cost the hospital's etc., health-care costs. it's a big impact on our economy. we lost tony. we will not get a response. here's gary on twitter -- carol in rochester, new york, a dietitian. what are your thoughts? caller: i don't think they should be mandatory. i question some of these new vaccines that come out, how much they have been tested.
i just don't want to be a guinea pig. sometimes i question whether they are safe. i think you really cannot trust the fda any more. so i think the health care workers are -- hospitals are trying to cover themselves from lawsuits. host: or loss of labor force possibly? caller: possibly, because there's a large labor force than has contact with patients, not only doctors and nurses. custodians, social workers, everybody is interacting with patients. but to make it mandatory, especially vaccines that come out as reaction to a new? strain, i question whether they are safe. -- that come out as a reaction to a new strain. host: your dietitian, were you required at your hospital? caller: i was not required, but i did get a standard one. it was a year or two there was a new virus strain and they rushed
a new vaccine on to the market and i was not point to take that. host: carroll is a dietitian in our tester, new york, and hospital. we will keep taking your phone calls on this to get your take on whether or not there should be thereflu vaccination for health care professionals, something that is happening on the state levels and that hospitals are requiring. and the couple did in 2005 and now it's up to about 400 according to a piece in "usa today." some other headlines, president obama meeting on friday with afghan president hamid karzai. and in the washington post says --
sticking with afghanistan, here's the washington post -- also in the washington post this morning, if full page of faces
of the fallen in the afghanistan war. as of tuesday, the death toll of u.s. forces was 2001 hundred 65. -- 2,165. and this on syria, fears over whereabouts of siri's uranium stockpile. that's the headline on this attrition in syria. and we also told you at the top about the benghazi attack on september 11, 2012. senators seeking one formation. hillary clinton will testify, likely to testify on january 22 before the senate foreign relations committee. look for coverage of that. and the washington times reported that lindsey graham had said if he does not get more answers from on what happened in benghazi, he will hold up the nomination of john brenan to become the next cia director. more headlines as we go along this morning. but back to our question, amanda
terkel vaccine for health care professionals. dorothy in clinton, michigan, republican caller. thanks for waiting. caller: thank you. i'm glad i got through. last time i got disconnected. when somebody mandates, like governor perry did, forcing the little girls to get -- host: the hpv vaccination. caller: there is no law that you get the vaccine. the one representative who is retiring, his grandson had all these vaccines and became, became he was up there during the committee telling all the folks that when they get their flu shot, they're getting mercury in their system. if you get the single vile, it's
possible you might not get mercury in your system, but there is the multi-dose vial and there's definitely mercury in those shots. host: dorothy is talking about dan burton. we did one of our exit interviews with him as he has already left the 112th congress. he was asked about his views on this. if people are interested, go to to watch the interview. dorothy said that this is not something being put into law. there was california legislation in 2012. here's the american medical news web site. rhode island has mandated all health-care workers with direct contact with patients be
vaccinated against seasonal influenza. the requirement marks the nation's first statewide mandates of flu shot for health professionals. in other states, flu vaccine mandates have been said by individual employers such as hospitals and health care centers. the mare island mandate took effect on october 26. seasonthe 2012-2013 flu as it was starting. the story goes on to say during the 2011-2012 season, 67% of health-care workers were vaccinated. that's up slightly from 64% received the vaccine in the 2010-2011 season. we will go to indianapolis to a nurse. go ahead, steve. caller: i think the mandatory vaccine is ridiculous, forcing employees to do that. the vaccine has heavy metals,
mercury. a lot of people don't know that. another thing that most people don't understand is all these flu shot are doing is causing viruses mutate quicker than what they would normally do. viruses mutate very fast wears bacteria does not. by pumping yourself with artificial vaccines, which only protect you against six strains to eight strains and there's over 250 strains out there, you're not really accomplishing anything. if you have to help the immune system, i suggest not getting them. i have never had the flu in 12 years and have never taken a flu shot. it's ridiculous. people need to research and figure this stuff out and quit believing what everybody's telling them. host: do you belong to a union? caller: i do not. host: do you have union
representation at your facility? caller: i really don't know, because i don't work at a hospital anymore. i do home health care. i just researched this stuff today because i refuse to believe what people tell me. it's your responsibility to learn this stuff, i feel. it's crazy. host: indiana made news recently. this is the headline, "nurses start for receiving a flu shot." alice in new york, independent scholar. caller: hello. thank you very much. i'm a little bewildered. every season, husband and i get the flu shot, which we did this time in early october. however i came down with a serious sinus infection and he had the flu. the doctor said it is apparently in a restrained than what was in
our vaccine. how is the public supposed to protect themselves? we are elderly. host: so you don't trust the? government on the caller: i'm not saying that. i believe all help workers should take it. my father was a position. he made sure that we got a polio vaccine that came out. so i am a believer in vaccination. but i find it bewildering that we are suffering in spite of the fact that we are pretty orthodox about getting vaccinated. host: some other headlines for you, the front page of the washington times, nomination of chuck hagel, a republican, to head the pentagon.
that's where the confirmation hearings will take place, before the senate armed services committee. the "washington times notes that several other republicans on the committee which will hold the hearings as already indicated they intend to -- have already indicated they intend to vote against chuck hagel. and regarding john kerry, swift boat veterans for troop helped to sink john kerry's bid for the white house years ago, but the group has decided it will not try to torpedo his nomination to head up the state
department. today's's a story in new york times opinion pages. chuck hagel under attack again, a story about his service in vietnam, something that many of you might know about -- might not know about. the soldier was on fire, yet he instinctively reached for the unconscious 19-year-old gun runner caught in the burning steel cage and rescued him. the story goes on to say that it was the brother of chuck hagel. the two of them serve side-by- side in a unit of 12 at times because of casualty's the squad was reduced to just the two brothers and four other men. so little about his service
during vietnam. in phoenix, arizona, ann is a republican and a nurse. caller: i agree with your caller from indiana. i have never received the flu shot. i don't believe it is effective, because of the multiple strains out there. so you have a 50-50 chance of receiving the vaccination and it might be the one that will work for the year. that said, i don't believe an employer has the right to force the medication, especially such an invasive, because it is an injection, on any employee. i think most people will come into contact with the into-- we're talking about any worker, it can be a cashier or a teller -- they should also fall under the same guidelines of any health care worker. our best line of defense -- and this has been proven time and again -- is that hand washing is
our number one defense. and if you have a call for cold war and you are sneezing, please be considerate, use kleenex. or like my father used to do in the old days, have a handkerchief available to cover your nose and mouth and then wash your hands afterwards. host: that is echoed on twitter -- next, meg in new jersey, democratic caller. caller: hi. my grandmother's mother ended up having a cold and they sent her to the hospital. she passed away in the hospital. she had complications due to the
flu. back then they did not have any of these shops around to give them immunity they needed. my grandfather is mother went into the hospital. she had a little cold and the doctor put her in a hospital. she died in hospital from flu.lications fromfl now we. the shot. my grandparents now go for the shots, as i do. -- now we have the shot. now we can prevent this. an ounce of prevention is a pound of cure. i feel everybody should have the shot. i get my annual flu shot and mike two children and grandchildren and we all get it and never have come down with anything.
host: in other news, here's the washington post editorial section -- opinion section -- we covered that speech. if you're interested, go to our website,,. we are covering many of the state of the state's beaches. near the front page of the new york times this morning. governor cuomo of new york is a tighter press for wide ban on assault weapons and magazines in his state of the state address, live on c-span around 1:00 p.m. eastern time today. go to our website,, to find out all the different speeches we will be covering from the different governors. also, we told you about this story at the beginning, a
hartford current, extreme 2012 drought, superstorm sandy, flooding, wildfires. it was record heat and a forecast of more to come. and another program note for you, richard nixon remembered, on his 100th birthday. the richard nixon foundation is marking the 100th birthday of the 37 u.s. president with a gala and union. we will cover that event at 8:30 p.m. tonight on c-span2. mary in georgia, a nurse. what are your thoughts? caller: i'm sorry, i cannot hear you, i have the flu. host: what are your thoughts? caller: i had been getting the flu shot up until this year. i went to delaware and came home
with the flu. first, i want to mention that health-care workers who see the patients in hospitals or doctors offices or clinics and other areas, the first line exposure are schools, shopping centers, those are the people i feel should get -- be required to get the flu shot. the first line exposure, not after they get to the health care system. that's the way i feel. and a lot of patients in hospitals get sick from people coming in from the outside bringing them in. they should have to prove they had a flu shot to visit. host: and we have beth, a nurse on the line. are you required to get the flu shot?
caller: not for me, but i am an occupation owners. i give the shots to police and ems, first responders. it is not mandatory. they have to sign a release if they don't get it. host: what are your thoughts on that? caller: i have been doing this 14 years. before that, i gave the vaccines for children at the. health the i think that people really need to look at the history of how vaccines have eradicated disease. i think you need to go to the facts, like the other caller said, but he was the opposite opinion. my opinion is to go to i have talked and worked with state doctors who really feel that vaccines are considered the
bad guy, but i am totally opposite of that. i think people need to look at the history. my mother just died last month with pneumonia in the hospital and from probably the flu. host: thanks for the call. she mentioned cdc. is another website. we spoke with dr. anthony fauci earlier as well from the national institute of health, the agency that helps to try to prevent the influenza from spreading and other allergies and other diseases. in other news, "politico"has this headline --
on the gun-control debate, some headlines for new this morning. in the financial times -- gabrielle giffords, former congresswoman who was shot, has
taken up this issue as well and has joined a group, americans for responsible solutions. in this story in usa today they say that there bill giffords and her husband mark kelly say they support the second amendment to the constitution and are both gun owners. gabrielle giffords says that she is the owner of a block handgun. -- glock handgun. we are talking about mandatory vaccine for health care professionals. caller: good morning. i am totally against that we would be mandated. i'm health care provider. yesterday i had a physical and the doctors said three times you're getting the push-out i said, i don't want the flu shot. there are so many people that are in contact with patients. going through the grocery store
last night and a restaurant and the deli counter, the workers were coughing. i walked out. think about people on subways, buses, restaurants, and in churches. so many professions where we come in contact. delivery people. this would mean -- bus drivers, you could go on and on with the list of people we all come in contact with each other. this is outrageous. he would be looking at bank tellers and clergy. i think we just need to stress more good hand washing and may be wearing gloves. it is just not patients in the hospital or the nurses and hospital. you could just have a list of how we come in contact with each other. would this mean every time we get on the subway, everyone needs to be checked for a vaccine? that's how ridiculous it is. host: indiana, a nurse. caller: i agree with her,
actually, 100%. as a matter of fact, the hospitals and nurses are probably the cleanest and most an aseptic place you can be. i will not go in walmart, only catche i don't want to anything. i've been a nurse 28 years. i do know that in indianapolis especially, i am appalled, because i've worked there for five years at the va, which is
where i coordinated transplants. i cannot believe -- i'm just appalled. that is like saying someone has aids and you cannot tell the nurses in the operating room. host: we will leave it there. we will run out of time on this topic. we will switch gears. we will take a short break. when we come back, the progressive agenda and president obama's second trip and the club for growth about the republican agenda and an upcoming budget battle in congress. we will be right back. >> ♪
÷÷÷ññ[video clip] >> hollywood's most famous movie stars leave the film capital to help the government sell war bonds. i've been done, ronald goldman, greg carson, all part of a contingent of 50 screen celebrities giving their time and talents to help the national war effort. what we want to look at today is how popular culture affected the war. how was the war presented in movies from the 1940's? how was it presented in comic books from the 1940's? how was it presented in athletic events from the 1930's -- 1940's? how was it presented in tin pan alley, from music in the 1940's? >> this weekend on american history tv, popular culture in world war ii, lectures in
history, saturday night at 8:00 and 10:00 eastern, on c-span3. [video clip] >> i think that collectivi zation of the mind of the founding fathers of america is dangerous. they were not a collective. presenting them as such tends to dramatically oversimplify the politics of the founding generation. it comes to be used as a big battering ram to beat people over the head with. it is in ways that are historically incoherent and unsound. >> the english professor on what he called the deep historical clause by conservative commentators in their use of america's founding history. he shares his views with a george washington associate professor of law on "book tv sunday night and 9:00 p.m. and midnight eastern on c-span2.
washington journal continues. host: the progressive agenda in 2013, our topic. adam green is co-founder of the progressive change campaign committee. let's begin with the fiscal cliff negotiations and a final deal that was before. here is a statement put forth from you in the new york times -- "progressives remain close." guest: did i say that? there's a direct correlation. going to the $400,000 rate, we left hundreds of billions of dollars on the table, which makes it more likely social security and medicare and medicaid benefits will be cut. republicans went on national tv and said we lost the fight.
national prominent republicans said that. we were not happy about that, mostly because we care so much about social security and medicare. host: the president was quoted as saying the offers i have made to them have been so fair that a lot of democrats get mad at me, so he calls them. guest: we need to debunk the idea that if the left is angry and the right is angry, that we must be doing something right. we've done a poll of several swing states. in new hampshire, where they 75% saide income tax, even to reduce the deficit, don't cut social security benefits. progressives like myself asking for purity on a 75% on the issue is completely different from those on the right standing up for the 11% of the population. their version of being fair is
essentially opposing a 60-40 compromise the other direction on an issue which it owns 75% of the vote. its 75% of the people decide this, we should not be making a deal. host: is it too late to go back to the $250,000 tax mark? dick durbin said we will look at deductions and loopholes. he did not say anything about going back to individual tax rates. guest: because we lost hundreds f billions -- the bars eve -- because we left hundreds of billions of dollars on the table, debars even higher for medicare and so on. there are millions of dollars in corporate tax loopholes lost. even mitch mcconnell in the senate was on meet the press this weekend and granted there are tax loopholes that need to be addressed. here's the difference. republicans want this to be revenue neutral. they want to close the loopholes, save hundreds of
billions of dollars, and give those under the billions right back in the form of lower tax rates for corporations. progressives need to stand up strong and say no. we need to demand that those hundreds of millions of dollars go right to address the deficit and preserve social security and medicare. that where we think the fight will be on the revenue side. host: your group is ok with going after deductions and loopholes rather than try to go back to get more tax revenue? guest: if any democratic or progressive leaders in congress went on national tv and said we're going to put the $250,000 rate on the table, we would fully support that. and at the end of the day, we are results oriented. we want to make sure social security and medicare and medicaid benefits are preserved. if democrats are successful in doing that by taxing corporations more as opposed to tax and high income individuals more, we would be fine with
that. will social security and medicare and medicaid benefits be cut and we say no. host: if they are cut, what does your group do? there would be somewhat of a nuclear war on the left. it's probably going to factor the party for the next two years. to the detriment of this president. we probably will start right away recruiting challengers for the next elections. local union leaders, local party officials, and activists. we would happily send out an e- mail in the district to those who support medicare and social security and medicaid cuts. host: have you ever want that at some members of congress? guest: we have launched it publicly in the more generic sense, saying this is a warning.
we want to be transparent. we don't learn from this nuclear war. for someone like me woke up every day in 2008 and thought, what can i do today to get barack obama elected president. he publicly admitted that he put social security benefits on the table. that's not a position i want to be in and not what i worked for and to thousand eight. host: did you work for it in 2012? guest: our organization prioritized congress in 2012. our number one candidate was elizabeth warren. she's already been told, calling out aig and big wall street bankers yesterday. we raised $1.5 million from grassroots contributions in this last election cycle. we raised $100,000 before she even announced she was going to
run so that on the first day of prayer campaign should be able to hire staff and put together a competent campaigner, which she did. we also supported 30 candidates in the cycle. we did not work to undermine the president, because it would've been a disaster if mitt romney had been elected. we wanted to make sure that -- we asked our members to donate $3 or $5 to a candidate so we could do that with clean hands and really get progressive candidates. host: one industry that has seen positive numbers even during the recession is the energy and gas industry. we're talking about jobs. in the states that have that industry, their unemployment rate has remained very low. here is the headline today in one of the newspaper's online --
we are talking about jobs. guest: who said that? host: jack welch. the petroleum industry. we have this idea that these big companies are the giant creatures. frankly, they had a decade to create jobs. they failed. tax breaks did not result in jobs. it results in moving jobs over seems which oversees. giving -- overseas. giving these guys more tax breaks is that the solution. the best way to solve the deficit issue is to create millions and millions of jobs for regular people. we could put 1 million teachers back to work by hiring the people that were fired in the
last two to zero years. -- the last two years. the debate is clear. to you stand with giant corporations, where little guy workers. host: here is the opinion section of "usa today" about aig . in guest: it is like somebody who is drowning in the water by some hero, and he says while you were sitting becoming choked me, and i'm going to see me, you choked me, and i'm going to see you. it is unconscionable. it is a breath of fresh air to
say bad corporate action is that corporate action. h, surely. democratic caller. caller: thank you for cesium. i wanted to make some comments -- c-span. i want to make some comments for the agenda we need to have as a nation. in focusing in social security, medicare and medicaid, we look at the cap, and it amazes me. i would like for c-span to do a program on the specific parameters as it relates to the cap. the cap is a household with two high-earners, who did not paid the -- would get into the limit around mid-june.
i thought it was strange because my family members who were paying their full social security tax, i found that strange and not fair. if we were to go, we could reduce the rate if we increased the cash, and that would create solvency for an eternity. as it relates to medicare, we should have people who are able to pay a higher co-pay such as myself and my husband, paid based on the income. i'm a understand -- i'm not understanding means-testing. it seems that it puts it in the realm of not collectively together.
host: adam green she is open to getting cost reduction out of medicare. guest: thank you for bringing that up. oftentimes democratic politicians are posing questions, do you support the entitlements on the tables, and that addresses two different things. when his reforms, which largely do not affect people we want these reforms, which largely to not affect people like my grandmother. for all the talk about social security solvency, it is not to treat a dime to the budget -- contribute a dime to the budget. if we want to extend it decades more, we can do what you are singing. this is a warren buffett is a billionaire that pays social security taxes and only the --
of only the first hundred $50,000 of his income. on medicare, i would point to another reform. dick durbin said this. if we allow medicare and medicaid to negotiate with drug companies for lower rates, which due to lobbying pressure, they are prohibited from doing now come we would essentially stop big corporations from ripping off taxpayers by $130 billion. is that an entitlement reform? progressives would love that. is that benefit cuts? no. when we hear this issue, we need to focus on the word benefit.
you laid out the contours of addressing entitlements. host: we have a debate on twitter. bill says closing loopholes -- wire liberals not supporting them? elyse says we do support closing loopholes, the gop has a list. let's see it. have we seen a list from republicans? guest: corporate tax loopholes is what i hope they are talking about. i do not know exactly what the republican list is but mitch mcconnell granted that there are savings by cutting corporate taxes. host: laura says meeting the
need deductions up to $1 million on second homes. there is room for reform. guest: sometimes people talk about shared sacrifice, starting from scratch. the bottling is we have seen income equality become very profound in the last decade. the rich has not been paying their fair share and our top priority is to make sure they are paying their fair share. finally asking corporations to pay their fair share, that is fighting, but if a will hit a household making $40,000 a year, that is not fine, and we need to be on the phone with representatives.
people are other side, of politicians -- but politicians need to see. host: i want to go to cindy on twitter -- why not raise the deduction cap on social security? george w. bush ended if. -- did it. guest: again, warren buffett pays taxes and only the first -- i guest: for social security, you are open for that? host: ed. pennsylvania. caller: when i hear the term progressive, and understanding
this just a little better, could he explain people that are progressive, and where the see the country going, and what a progressive believes. i hear the term all the time whether it is used in financial positions or political party members with the president is referenced as a progressive. i just want to understand the term. guest: that is a great question. my committee co-founder is a historian and she's getting her ph.d. in this, but i will tell
you what aggressive means to me. i think it is about economic populism, fighting for the little guy. yes there are social and foreign policy issues, but for us the issue is standing up for the little guy. that guides our position and things like social security and medicaid what kind of job creation we want, things like campaign finance, which of the major priority in the next congress, incentivizing politicians not to spend hundreds of hours calling millionaires, but talking to people in their district. so, that is what it means to me.
there is a profound history of progressivism going centuries back, and i would incurred you to check out more @stephanie taylor on twitter. after election day, democrats picked up two seats in the senate, but the real story is the composition. joe lieberman is out. kent conrad is out. elizabeth warren asean. -- is in. tim bowen is impaired -- in. we are thrilled with the composition of the new senate.
about two years ago, the blue dog party had about 74 members. this week, 14 members, and the progressive caucus is expanding. there is a huge crop of all some people in the house in the senator -- awesome people in the house in the senate. host: if barney frank becomes a seek holder, what does that do in negotiations over the budget battle? guest: i did not think he would be that different than john kerry, but he would be a strong voice.
host: john kerry voted for the fiscal cliff deal. guest: i'm pretty sure barney frank did as well. many democrats supported the deal with the vow that we will hold onto that to cut social security. back to barney frank, our big issue is will he support cuts to social secure become medicaid and medicare benefits, and i believe he will not support those cuts. we to make sure in this appointment and whoever wins the election, it cannot cancel out elizabeth warren. we'll need a bold partner. host: will he seek out your endorsement? guest: i would not put it that way.
host: what kind of resources do you have? guest: we have 1 million members across the nation, and this is a unique campaign because there is one person that is the voter, the governor. host: do you think barney frank is a place called -- place holder, or might he change his mind? guest: i think he did not want to deal with a new district, so by that logic, i do not think so. i think it will be a pressing battle if scott brown decides to run. we raised over 2.5 million
dollars. we bring people power to the table, everyday people that want to support bold, aggressive candidates. we bring the nation of people willing to make phone calls. people that are willing to get home from work and spend two hours calling t voters. -- key voters. we also give the advice to candidates, and as we asked people to donate to a candidate, but it is not been wasted. -- been wasted.
guest: -- host: how should democrats vote and we nomination of chuck hagel? guest: we have not gotten into effect. host: arizona. -- caller: i wanted to ask about the flat tax. broad across the board. guest: we oppose that because the rich need to pay their fair share and every study shows a flat tax would increase taxes on the little people. but me one more idea on the table. -- let me get one more idea on
the table. oftentimes, conclusions are made from certain choices put on the table. if they exclude certain choices, good choices cannot be made. they will say we will escort people making $1 million or more -- we will ask people making $1 million to pay 46%. $1 billion, 49%. that would raise $1 trillion. that would allow us to take social security, medicare and medicaid benefits off the table, and hired teachers that have been fired, and put people back to work.
how many politicians have you heard talking about millionaires? probably not many. we need a progressive taxation which in the grand scheme of things is moderate. host: charles. buffalo, new york. caller: thank you. mr. adam green, you opened your conversation discussing the politics of negotiation and how poor the president was in that facet. can you call us about your background in negotiations it your background in washington back -- in your background in washington?
guest: that went to law school and after taking the bar in new york and new jersey. i worked on a major south dakota senate race. we won the top race in the nation and we saw pro-life, pro- gunned farmers and ranchers support our candidate. and made a mental conversion from the new democratic hack to a progressive the activist. i joined mo vaughan -- i was acclimated to, in politics -- 2, politics.
four years ago, two days ago, we launched the progressive change campaign, and our basic thought was elected and mobilizing around genuine progressive candidates, opening up new space and talk about new issues. we just cannot think about two- year he election cycles. the two-year election cycles. we need to engage in intellectual battle of ideas. people have great ideas, need to be brought together at the grass-roots level. in terms of negotiation, i would point to how we do our homework, we never ask a politician to do
something that would be not popular with voters back home. people say to not cut social --urity's, a we merely asked and we merely asked politicians to be responsive to their constituents. as much as politicians cry about an issue, they're not even representing republican voters. our premise is on the winning side of the 75% issue. host: "the washington times, called this morning --
the deal did nothing to control spending. let me add this story about nancy pelosi's agenda. what is on the table? you're saying no social security, medicaid, which are the major drivers, so what is on the table for spending cuts? there are a lot of questions. -- guest: there are a lot of questions.
the major drivers are tax cuts for the wealthy, and two wars. let's not pretend gramm the is responsible for our deficit -- grandma is responsible for our deficit. getting the same prescription drugs by simply allowing medicare and medicaid to negotiate, that would be spending cuts and would impact the big guy, not the little guy. right now, in the name of family farmers, we subsidize giant agricultural corporations. elizabeth warren talked about a balanced approach talking about increasing revenue of the rich, and let's cut wasteful military spending. all of that is spending cuts.
corporate welfare is spending cuts. that should be on the table, not people on minuscule incomes on the chopping block, and pretend that they are somehow responsible. we say the president got everything he want, and our organization has a track record of holding the present responsible. i will give him credit for oftentimes republicans forcing him to change his plans, then the new plan does not work, and they say he got everything he wanted and it did not work.
how about we have the public option? host: eddy. massachusetts. caller: elizabeth warren sounds just like ted kennedy -- give me more schools, roads. how're we going to pay for eight it -- pay for it? -- thought i think i have talked about some of the solutions. ax itthe millionaires te would impact people there least likely to hire people, this is their personal income taxes.
that would be plenty of money to rebuild crumbling schools and bridges and rebuild the infrastructure of this country. in addition, identified tax loopholes. that is the basic answer. host: right. independent. caller: i was wondering about the progressive party. is it attached to the democratic party? are you trying to eradicate the democratic party? in guest: we are not a party. we are part of a movement. i would encourage you to think about the difference between a party and a movement. there was a conservative
movement separate from the republican party, and sometimes they are more right on an issue. we have only supported the progressive, democratic candidates, like elizabeth warren, tammy baldwin and the list goes on and on. these people are democrats, but they're bold, economic populist fighters. we're trying to change the party from within. some people talk about a progressive party, and media is in the future, but the bottom line is are you standing for the little guy, and one thing we will fight for it is fundamental, big picture campaign finance reform. public funding of elections.
right now, politicians are incentivize to spend their time calling millionaires. if you raise a certain amount, you get a chuckle public money. if you raise, every dollar book it matched. that incentivizes people to build an aggressive brace -- base, not going into a tiny room with millionaires. this is game changing. it would change who politicians listen to. the biggest thing working against us is corporate money and corporate benefactors who that special interests. host: does the growth of the progressive agenda benefit?
the front page of this -- of "the washington post." guest: to state the obvious, this is not a progressive covers. it is republican-ride -- republican-controlled. let's shattered the myth that both parties are equally complicity. it is well-observed that every major issue, the tea party and republican insert is no. it democrats completely -- if democrats completely caved, they would still say no.
the idea that we have generic this from jim, that we are not going to -- dysfunction, that we are not going to contribute blame, it is very hot off base. the biggest -- off base. the biggest of product is it throws the message is received a message to the american people that they should just throw their hands up -- to the american people that they should just throw their arms up. host: adam green, progressive change campaign, thank you for being here. coming up next, we will talk to chris chocola president of adam green, talking about the republican agenda, and then
later on robert costa and his reported on house speaker john boehner's tenure, but first a news update. >> "the new york times" reports the new cyber attacks on u.s. banks are different than prior attacks using networks of computers and data centers. a computer security expert says that the skill required to carry these attacks on this scale has convinced officials it is the work of iran. researchers found it was coming from around the world, and various cloud services had been infected with a sophisticated form of malware called it is so no problem bro.
a settlement has been reached with the company accused of conspiring to tortured detainees has paid $5.5 million to former prisoners. a contractor of arlington, the virginia, is expected to go on trial over similar allegations this summer. former new mexico democratic governor bill richardson speaking earlier today in north korea says his delegation is pressing the country to put a moratorium on nuclear tests, and to allow cell phone and internet access for citizens. he said they are also asking for fair and humane treatment for an
american citizen detained. also on the trip, google chairman eric schmidt. >> enjoy the capitol hill coverage. i started there many decades ago. the seven committee hearings are informative to see what really happens. i like the way that c-span presence things the way they're really happening. >> bill watches c-span on comcast. c-span, rescue by your system provider -- brought to buy your system provider as a public service. >> "washington journal" continues. host: chris chocola, president
of the adam green -- club for growth. let me show you the headline of local the washington -- "the washington times." are you part of this effort? ?re you consulting bac guest: we have supported a real champions of economic freedom and many house members because we want people to bring fiscal sanity to washington. we endorse people that we thinks hold a pro-growth review and will support a pro-growth agenda after they're elected. we are in desperate need of that. there's a lot of talk about shutting down the government revolve around the debt ceiling debate.
i do not think it is a debt ceiling debate. the question is simple, do we want more debt or less debt. people like ted cruz and his colleagues say we should have less debt. republicans want less. the democrats want more get the same thing is to continue on the path we are on -- more. the insane thing to do is to continue the path we are on. we endorse responsible behavior. the only thing more irresponsible in shutting the government found it is continuing to suffocate ourselves in debt. we have 86 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities the we have no idea how to pay. the previous guest said we could raise taxes on rich people. you could confiscate the wealth of every rich american, a new
would be 30% short of the promises we have made. you cannot tax your way out of this. you need fundamental reform. we need to be serious about this. the pain of a temporary shutdown will pale in comparison to continue on the path we are on. host: what to make the fiscal cliff deal? guest: there was no good outcome. we oppose the final deal because we think raising taxes on anyone is anti-growth. we actually do not oppose new revenue. we think revenue and as a result of economic growth is find. -- fine. we understood the debate that members of congress would have -- if i do nothing, taxes will go off on everybody, if i do
this, they will go some, but you cannot debate the spending. the kicking the can down the road. in august, they raise the debt ceiling, and what did we get in return? finding a way to cut spending. how much did they cut? 0. we do not target anyone any single vote could we look for a pattern of behavior. we look at the scores as a compilation of their service. this is one vote. host: there was this headline from "mihill -- the hill" -- guest: we did not write that headline. we did score the sandy road, and
we think people should get the relief they deserve, but we have disasters every year, and every time that we have them, it is the same response, let's pass a bloated disaster relief bill that is not paid for. my only -- our belief is to put money aside that is needed, and let's pay for it. if we have to help those in need, there are probably other places we do not need to spend the money. just making it an additive and putting ourselves in that is a disaster. host: let me show you what governor chris christie had to say about this in his state of the state address yesterday. [video clip] >> we as the state had waited 72
days, and one thing i hope everything in america understands, which everyone in america understands, -- everyone in america understands, new jersey, republicans and democrats, will never stand aside when our citizens are being short-changed. guest: it would be great if governor chris christie, in his great direct style would say we deserve to help others, we do not deserve a country with a $60 billion bill fourth things like fixing the roof of the smithsonian, or hundreds of billions of dollars of debt nothing to do with helping people that were effected by sandy. that would be the responsible thing to do. to say let's pass it and not worry about wasteful spending, putting our children in more
debt, so that we get ours now, that is the problem we have been through for generations, and we cannot continue to do this. there was an opportunity missed by the governor, who needs to advocate for his state, but we do not need to hurt everyone else. host: does club for growth look at governor races? the guest: we just look federal races. host: chris christie said washington should be looking at at new jersey for the way they do things. what do you think of chris christie as a governor? guest: i think there are many reform-minded governors, and in some cases governor chris christie has done a good job in describing the problem. in many cases we do not even describe the problem very well. he is not perfect, but he has good points.
his direct style is appealing, and i wish he would use it to explain the problem that we have on our fiscal, unsustainable flooding. host: we covered that state of the state address, and we are covering many, including andrew cuomo this afternoon, 1:0 p.m. on c-span, and go to our web site to follow all of our programming. back to the hurricane sandy release -- -- relief, here is " the new york daily news ."
are you keeping track of where the votes are? guest: with members of congress, we put all vote alerts, and we try to explain what we think the right to vote would be, but in this case, again, a lot of that money is not going anywhere near new jersey or to aid victims, in a lot of the money has very little oversight. i think we ought to find out exactly what the people need. we think flood insurance should be a state and local responsibility, not a federal responsibility. here, people paid premiums, and there was no money to pay off half contractual -- contractual obligations.
that isn't the way to run the program. it is distorted because the federal current does not know how to price, and the insurance industry likes the program because they are paid to administer it and they take on none of the risk. you have a perverted risk estimations on all sides, and it leads up to obligations with no money to pay it, putting the insurance people in difficult positions, the taxpayers in difficult positions and we have to borrow from our kids to pay it off. it is a very bad system and we have to the for a way to make it effective for all of those concerned. michael. democratic -- host: michael. democratic caller. caller: i would like to ask
this congressman, who is the one spending the money? they act like the president has a blank check. you guys have been there for two years. who is doing the spending? not a michael, i'm congressman, i'm a former congressman, would you are right. congress spends the money, and our criticism is bipartisan. we think both parties have engaged in irresponsible spending for decades and it is not sustainable. that is our point. the debt limit debate is crucial. we're not going to advocate shutting down the government, but we will lead to take responsible behavior because we cannot continue to take on the debt and deficit and unfunded liabilities that will suffocate our future. you are right. congress spends the money and should have the responsibility.
host: michael, virginia. caller: my comment is more for the previous guest, adam green parrot we need to do whatever it takes -- adam green. we need to do whatever it takes to control this crazy spending, even if it takes a government shutdown. we are heading where greece and spain were a few years ago. one of the most destructive policies instituted by this is administration is dividing the country. everybody is speaking about the little guy against the big guy. we are all in the same boat. if we get to this that we all
fear, we will get there together -- corporations, small guys, grandpa and grandma i -- everyone will get there at the same time and the same speed. guest: michael is right. we are all in this together. we all share in the debt and deficit this country has created. we have to find ways to work together to change the path. there are sensible ways in social security that are relatively easy. medicaid is harder. social security has four moving parts. medicaid has about 1000. medicare, the same thing. we have to find ways to do it. continuing to kick the can down the road, we cannot do the hard things today, but trust us later, it is not inspiring.
in many ways we already looks like greece. our debt is about 100% of gdp. government is 25% of annual economy, and those are numbers that are historically dangerous for our country to be in. if we do not change them soon, we will look like greece, and have many of the same problems. when people lose confidence in our ability to be fiscally responsible, bad things will happen fast. we saw a glimpse of that in 2008. that will just be an appetizer. host: did you support john boehner? guest: we do not do leadership. only members of congress get that vote. i think john boehner is a fine individual, a conservative individual. i wish he would lead a little
more consistent with his own votes, and i have heard him say he is not knig, but speaker of the congress that he has to represent, but i think nancy pelosi provides a great example. it might surprise your viewers that i have great respect for nancy pelosi because she provided real real ship -- real leadership, believing in obama- care, finding a way to get it through the house, and she lost the majority over, but it is the law today. there is a lesson there to stand up for what you believe, take the risk, and maybe even lose. host: are you more effected, able to raise more money if you are in the minority, were fighting with democrats, or within yourselves?
guest: we do not look at it as fighting. we look at it as encouraging. we try to hold every member of congress accountable. in many respects we are critical of republicans. we are not a republican organization. we are fiscally conservative. we do not do social or foreign policy issues. we just find ways to promote economic policies. our first focus his safe, open, republican seats. if there is a district of will elect a republican, we will get involved because we want the most pro-growth candidate. host: owen. washington. caller: thank you. you said even if we were to solve everything, we would be
30% underfunded for the debt. who do we owe the debt to? the federal reserve bank, because of all the interest. why do we not go back to a constitutional currency, and keep using long-based money? our whole money system is dead. -- debt. you talk about social security, why do we not just follow the laws? those that want to participate, can participate, anyone that has paid in can stay in the fund. --s called chris chocola host: chris chocola? guest: when i sit confiscate the wealth, i'm talking about unfunded liabilities. but for people have to for
numbers, but let's say is $86, trillion -- $86 trillion, that is what i'm talking about. you are right, social security was created by congress, and it should be changed by congress. when people say republicans want to change medicaid as we know what, republicans should say you are darn right because it is going to be bankrupt and it cannot fulfil the promises that we made. there are ways to solve these problems and not only provide benefits to those that need them. you do not cut benefits. you just slow the growth, and frankly wealthier people will get less, and less wealthy people will get more. under many of the proposals, it would help save these programs. so, that is the point that i was trying to make. i think if congress would do the math they would find a way to fix it.
host: bill on twitter -- the tea party is willing to collapse the world economy over there out of touch ideology. house said. guest: is it out of touch to say that we should not spend what we do not bring in? is it out of touch that we should not burden our children with debt so that we do not have to make tough decisions today? is it out of touch to say we will learn from the mistakes in europe? is it out of touch to say we will continue to spend our children's inheritance? i think that is out of touch and that is the radical position. the shot hit region shutting the government down, which by --
shutting the government down, which i not advocating for, but the pain will pale in comparison to what we will suffer later. host: democratic caller. caller: republicans always find their religion when measures are needed that do not affect areas that are concerned by them. when katrina relief was needed, the federal debt and deficit was ballooning, and we did not see anybody spending up there, and we needed of since 36 offsets all the way up until the president got into -- needed offsets' until this president got into office. everything was already in place
under republican-led spending, but now they have found religion and want to cut these programs said affect people that did not cause the economic downturn or the ballooning of the debt. they always find religion what it does not affect them. guest: let me just be clear that the club for growth has had a clear position on this. we are accused of being uncarin g let it comes to disaster relief, and it is not fair, because we want people to get the relief they need to love but we believe it should be paid for. the government should set money aside for emergencies. we can predict there will be emergencies every year. history has done that they will help those in need, so let's put the money aside, let's budget
for it, and be in a position to help those people rather than borrow money in the future. it is pointed out many times that every dollar we spend we borrow 40 cents of the dollar. continuing to put ourselves further in debt is creating a disaster for every single american, and having responsible behavior today or we could help those in need without reading a broader problem is simply the responsible thing to go -- to do. host: a republican caller, maryland. caller: i want to commend forums like this. as a black republican, and growing more frustrated by the day because i believe we have
oral communication skills -- portable communication skills. my question to you is what advice would you give the house and the senate leaders and how we could communicate to bring blacks and latinos over because we say silly things like shutting down the department of education, the department of labor, the epa. we could say it in a better way. most black folks work at the epa. if we say we're going to shut them down, who is going to vote for us?
guest: that is a good point. i always say the enemy of good government is 30 seconds, because all politicians get is 30 seconds, and the lesson we have learned is when you have a candidate that can deliver a clear conservative message, they wind. marco rubio wins. but jeff -- jeff blake won in arizona. everyone, regardless of race or religion has the opportunity to succeed, and america offers better opportunities -- offers that opportunity. i do not think republicans have been inspiring in their message. there are younger senators, governors, house members than very good and a relative basis
and to live in that message. -- in delivering that message. tim scott is one of the most aspiring politicians i have encountered in many years marco rubio has the ability to communicate a message better than anyone that has come along in recent years. they are good examples, but republicans need to have confidence that free market opportunity is there for everyone, and if they would embrace that confidently and deliver that effectively, they would appeal to a broad base. host: you mentioned they won with support from club for growth. guest: we are proud of our relationship with people like marco rubio, who people said could not win. ted cruz we endorsed early on in
republican primary, and now they are offered as the whole of the republican party and the future of our country -- hope of the republican party, and the future of our country. host: here is a press release put out by your group, a quotation from jim who said -- these people that might not have one without your help, do you expect them to not compromise? guest: we are all for compromise. i find this argument interesting to compromise in a vacuum means nothing.
where do you start means everything. where do we grow government? the compromise and how much we jim demint, who we have had a long relationship with, he said something like, i've never seen a bipartisan bill that shrank the size of government. the compromise is -- how much should we? how much should we shrink government? how much should we shrink up a free markets and put capital back, rather than have the government redistribute it inefficiently and effectively? -- ineffectively? host: the 2011 ceiling -- debt ceiling debate raised --
guest: there has been no budget control act. the only thing that happened was we took on more debt. how much spending was achieved? none. they promised they would have this thing called the super committee, and they will do really good things. anybody who has been around washington long enough was skeptical. there was such a harsh consequence to not doing the right thing now that, later, we will do things that are unimaginable. they are unimaginable because they won't even do it. this saga continues. they still cannot do the sequester. this is silly. we're going to have another debt ceiling debate. i'm sure that the saba will continue again. we will do the hard things later -- the saga will continue again. we will do the hard things later. when people say it is extreme to say we just ought to stop this,
we ought to find a way to turn the ship, alter the path to put ourselves on a sustainable path, i do not think that is a radical position, i think it is a responsible position. host: independent caller, good morning. caller: i have a question for mr. chocola. i'm familiar with you from when you served in indiana. i have two questions. my first is, why is it that now that our debt has become so much larger, and now we are worried about it? we are all hysterical about what is going on. we had to make drastic cuts, all these ideas. where were the voices speaking out during the last republican president, who made some really
bad decisions financially? i think even some republicans would agree with me on that. conservatively, i did not hear anyone saying whoa, wait a minute, we're adding to our debt and deficit with these wars, medicare part d. where were the voices then? host: let's get a response. guest: is has been a bipartisan problem. i served in congress from 2003 to 2007. i was there in some of the worst times when republicans tarnished the republican brand by spending too much. i saw firsthand. my message to the leadership, if we really did tax reform, entitlement reform -- and unfortunately, leadership was not willing to do that.
it was republicans that would not support the effort to do tax reform. this has been a bipartisan problem. let me put things in perspective, not to justify, but but it in context. when i left congress in january, 2007, our annual deficit was $186 billion, and that was way too much then. today it is over $1.20 trillion. i don't recall what our debt limit was, but it was somewhere between $4 trillion and $5 trillion. today, it is $16 trillion. we have more than quadrupled, in many respects, our debt and deficit. that is a path to ruin. the voices, i think, are even louder now because the problem is that much bigger. but it has been a bipartisan problem. we think we do need bipartisan solutions. the attack solution in the
fiscal cliff -- itthe tax solution -- the tax solution in the fiscal of negotiation has a deficit of $1.20 trillion per year. the question for congress and the president, where is the other 94% coming from? he said, if we just raise taxes on rich people, we will solve our debt and deficit problem. but we just raised taxes on rich people, and many small businesses that employ many americans, and we saw maybe 6% of the problem. how are you going to fix the other 94%? where is that money coming from? host: allentown, pennsylvania, democratic caller. caller: i have been listening for about half an hour. he comes on with all the talking points. pat toomey has the same ones. pat toomey was running the show
at club for growth for years. in 1955, corporations paid 33% of the federal government taxes. today, it is 9%. pat toomey and club for growth wanted 0%. also, on these shutdowns and this is for bills that we already incurred. it is like not paying your credit card bill. it is a bill that congress voted for to raise the debt ceiling. host: we will get a response. chris chocola. the club for growth -- guest: we do not support many of the tax loopholes that the corporations enjoy. we think the government should not write into the tax code winners and losers. we wanted to get rid of the ethanol credit. as far as corporate tax rates, there is an argument that corporates do not pay taxes,
consumers do. they pay the embedded cost of the tax. we compete in a global economy. you have to compete with other countries and the total cost of doing business in those countries. it is not an ideological thing. it is a competitiveness and math thing. how do u.s. corporations compete in the global market? there is more wealth created in america, and that is a good thing. pat toomey was president of the globe for -- of the club for growth. pat toomey is a great american. we're very proud of his service in the u.s. senate. we think he will provide some leadership as we go into these tough debates and the sequester, which has been kicked down the road again, and the debt ceiling. we think pat will do a good job. host: mapleton, ill., an independent scholar. -- caller. caller: i'd think you are
starting to get the picture from all the callers who have called. people are pretty frustrated. i don't see anything changing. i had a good opportunity, over the years -- i'm retired now. i don't have any debt at all. i've never had any debt. i think it is important that you express to people that it is not that easy to recover when you have stolen -- not you, personally -- but the banks, you just cannot get over that right away. you cannot make it seem like it never happened. a lot of people's lives were ruined. i think that is something you need to really pay attention to and maybe talk to some real people. i know you lobby. i know you were a congressman. those are not real people. host: just to clarify, former congressman. guest: washington is not a real
place. it is 50 miles surrounded by reality, somebody called it. there's a lot of ideology. there are a lot of talking points. what you're doing right now will make things like enron look like todds' -- what we are doing right now will make things right and wrong look like child's -- make things like enron look like child's play. while there is time to put these programs on the path to sustainability, we should do it. hard decisions have to be made. we can make good on the promises we have made. no one in any of the proposals, whether you like them or don't like them talks about -- don't like them, talks about altering these. paul ryan plan -- love paul ryan
plan does not touch anything 55 -- the paul ryan plan does not touch anybody 55 or older. they are talking about slowing the growth. i won't get into a whole discussion of baseline budgeting. you are right. washington is not a real place. a budget like no family in america budgets -- they budget like no family in america budgets. slow the growth. cut in some places where you truly have wasteful spending. and we can put this country back on the path of sustainability. if we do not, it makes corporations' bad behavior, like enron, look like a pretty minor thing compared to what we're going to do to every american. host: 4 worth, texas, republican line -- fort worth, texxas, republican -- fort worth, texas,
republican line. [video clip] caller: that new tower had a 20- year warranty on it. they have replaced it five times. is there some reason they keep spending -- buying new stuff that we don't need? that's just one building. i'm sure they do it in all of them. host: ok. chris chocola. guest: if you tried to root out all the wasteful spending of federal dollars, you could not find it all. and that is part of the problem. the problem with washington is, if you care more, you spend more. just by spending more, it shows you care more. that is a bad standard. it's not the individuals who are making the spending decisions. it is not their money. they do not spend it wisely. tom coburn puts out a list every year. citizens against government waste puts out a list every
year. there are never-ending examples of wasteful spending in washington. it is almost criminal. the amount of money that is wasted. if we simply found a way to manage better, we would have, i think, a much more sustainable position, but it is a tough thing to do. no one is really trying to do it. host: florida, democratic caller, you are last fourth chris chocola of the club for growth -- you are last for chris chocola of the club for growth. caller: it seems like this is a bad time to be taking a snapshot of these programs because of the recession. all of these projections -- we had a projected surplus back in 2000. now we are making all these projections based off of these numbers.
the government is having to pay extra in order to keep people sustained for living. it just seems to me the main thing is to get people working and get them jobs, get them paying taxes, and the deficit will take care of itself. we are making a big thing out of nothing. we are either being disingenuous or we are ignoring the elephant in the room. guest: you are right. the focus should be getting people back to work, but how do you do that? we believe in pro-growth policy. we believe the private sector generates jobs, wealth, and economic growth, not the federal government. it is a zero sum game when the government takes money from a and gives it to b. there is no wealth created. there is no multiplier effect. you took $1. you probably got less than $1 because the federal government eight up some of that $1 in the transaction -- the federal government ate up some of that
$1 in the transaction. when there is more opportunity, people get jobs and they are in a better position in life. and, by the way, there are more taxpayers. when there are more taxpayers, even though you take a smaller slice of their income, there is more revenue. we do not think government creates jobs, wealth, and prosperity, we think the private sector does. we think less government create bigger economy, not more government. host: chris chocola, thanks for talking to our viewers. coming up next, we will focus on the leadership of the house gop. first, a news update from c-span radio. but it is 9:14 a.m. eastern time. the presidential inaugural committee is set to announce that at the swearing-in ceremony for president obama and vice president biden, a fiancee will sing the national anthem. kelly -- beyonce will sing the
national anthem. kelly clarkson will sing "my country 'tis of thee." james taylor will sing -- you can watch the swearing-in on c-span. a man accused of stealing a truck containing president obama's audio equipment is scheduled to plead guilty today. a 2005 ford van containing podiums and electronic equipment used by the president was going doss stolen from a hotel parking lot last october. and the band -- was stolen from a hotel parking lot last october and recovered the next day. it happened just ahead of a visit by obama to a richmond fire station where he promoted his jobs plan. vice president biden will meet
with victims and gun safety organizations. the aim is to build consensus around proposals to curb gun violence following the horrific elementary school shooting in newtown, connecticut. tamara, the vice president meets with the national rifle association and other -- tomorrow, the vice president meets with the national rifle association and other gun ownership groups. the state of the state address is happening across the country this month. today, governor andrew cuomo is expected to announce a andn -- an assault weapons ban. hear him at 1:30 today on c-span radio or watch him on c- span. governor crist kristi spoke earlier. he says he is willing to have -- governor chris christie spoke
earlier. he says that policymakers must improve access to drug treatment and look at the impact of violent video games. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> if you ask how many are self- identified libertarians, you might be getting between 10% and 15%. if you ask questions -- if you give people a battery of questions about different ideological things, do you believe in x and y, and to track those to different idea of it -- ideologies, you get up to maybe 30% of americans calling themselves libertarian. if you ask the following question -- are you economically conservative, but socially liberal -- you get over half of americans saying that is what they are. just because people say these things, it does not mean they believe them. if you ask most americans, do
you want smaller government, they say yes. if you ask them to cut any particular item on the budget, they do not really want to cut anything. so, it is not really clear if they believed it. roughly -- as low as 10% and as high as 30%. libertarians, if they were conscious and political, they could be a big movement. it could be a big group of people who had shared ideology and could have a lot of influence in politics. for various reasons, they are not organized that way right now. >> author jason brennan sunday night at 8:00 p.m. on c-span's "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: on wednesday here on "washington journal," our last hour, take a look at our recent magazine piece. we are joined by robert cost of "national review."
-- robert costa of "national review." "boehner the survivor." guest: controlling the house republican caucus is not an easy job. i think john bamir grew up in seven -- john boehner grew up in southern ohio, his family's restaurant, he knows how to corral a lot of people. even after that experience, this is a tough job. he struggled to bring plan b to the floor. that was his fiscal cliff deal. he did not even bring it to the floor. only 85 republicans voted for it. even eric cantor and kevin mccarthy, the house #two and no. 3 -- house number two and number three, did not vote on it. boehner survived the vote, but he is struggling to assert himself as speaker. host: you write about this quiet
coup that happened during the public vote for speaker. we covered the whole thing. 12 republicans defected and voted for somebody else. what was going on behind the scenes? guest: it was a fascinating scene for political junkies. i was outside of the house floor that day. there were rumblings that maybe 20 members would be trying to revolt against the speaker. to get to a second ballot in the speaker vote coming you need 17 defections. nine republicans voted against boehner -- speaker boehner, you need 17 defections. nine republicans voted against boehner, far from getting a second ballot. that was a show of what was discussed but about the house republican leadership -- what was discussed about the house republican leadership. mick mulvaney of south carolina, other members of the
class of 2010 -- a huge class of republicans coming into the house. they had of local, assertive presence the last two years. they were unhappy -- they had a vocal, assertive presence the last two years. they were unhappy. host: there are more conservative than that. talk about that. guest: that is a great point. i was on the phone yesterday with john flannery, an -- jeff landry, a real boehner critic. he was trying organized a real dissent against boehner -- trying to organize a real dissent against boehner. once this outgoing congressman, in the winter of 2012, notice what was happening on twitter, he tried to create a public
campaign. within the house, jeff landry told me it was very disorganized. members were very unsure, even those who really dislike boehner behind-the-scenes, about what to do. some of them wanted to push for a secret ballot. that fizzled. that never happened. a lot of members are very cautious. if you break with boehner, publicly vote against the speaker, there goes your public dollars, your support from the speaker when fund-raising. your political support is going to be under question. it is a risky move. a lot of people did not want to do it. host: any grumbling that there will be consequences? guest: john boehner came out and said there would be no consequences. i have spoke to a lot of conservative staffers and they are nervous. host: about? guest: subcommittee chairmanships, maybe they will not get them in the future.
if you do not vote with the leaders of, there may be a consequence down the line -- the leadership, there may be a consequence down the line. host: what about eric cantor? guest: a lot of these rebels were courting him. if there was a second ballot, they know they did not have the consensus candidate. they were hoping that eric cantor would step up its border was weak -- step up if boehner was week. cantor wanted no part to do with this rebellion. he was not part behind the scenes or publicly of this coup -- but he did break with the speaker arne fiscall -- the speaker on the fiscal cliff vote. i do not think he's going to go against voter in the next couple of years. when the next election for
speaker happens, conservatives within the caucus will remember how eric cantor handles this book with, and that may help him. cliff,dled the fiscal and that may help him. host: there were others with some interesting votes. paul ryan voted for it. marco rubio boats no on -- vote s no on it. guest: if you love politics, you have to look at it. i think paul ryan's decision was very interesting. when i was watching the vote, more reporters were watching what paul ryan did than eric cantor or mccarthy. paul ryan is coming off of a presidential campaign. he is a power player within the party. one of the important things he has done since the campaign is aligned himself with speaker boehner -- align himself was
speaker boehner. he wants to make 2013 a fiscal year. paul ryan wants boehner as a partner. host: we have not heard from paul ryan after the president's a conference -- contest was over and -- after the presidential contest was over and leading up to this. guest: he is very friendly with reporters and loves going on television. i do not think he wanted his fingerprints on this fiscal cliff mess. he knew there would be no perfect outcome. he would continue to focus on 2013. he has just been in the spotlight, the dead heat, the center of american politics. he wanted to recharge his batteries. host: what does the 113th congress hold for him? what does 2013 look like for paul ryan?
guest: because of how he handled the fiscal cliff, because he went with speaker john boehner, he is in position to be an influential person once again. the speaker knows he can trust paul ryan to stick with him. you'll see paul ryan ruled out his budget in the spring. out hiscontinue -- rollou budget in the spring. host: what do you expect from marco rubio in the senate? guest: it was amazing there was not as much dissent in the senate. marco rubio -- i spoke to him on the night of the vote at 2:00 a.m. he says, we need a big package, not this piecemeal reform that does not attack the problem. a lot of people interpret that as very political, not really
realistic at this time, with this divided congress, but he is all about his principles. we will continue to hear about his principles, perhaps even to the runup for the 2016 primary. host: go ahead. you are on the air. caller: thank you for taking my call. it is funny. i'm glad this gentleman address this issue with boehner as the survivor. conservative,ht but i tried to be open-minded. i think the biggest challenge to boehner and the republican -- i want to call it the conservative one, we needoumber to put better candidates up. number two is shooting ourselves
in the foot constantly because i think we are frustrated. if we sometimes sell our values down the street, so to speak, just to get something positive down and actually get enough power, enough votes to get something through, that person is a traitor. the hard line is -- they are so fractured that they are never going to get two parts of any of the three parts of government. -- government elected -- elected. host: what are your thoughts on that? guest: one of the real stories of 2013 will be the disarray. speaker boehner had a. quorte das speaker boehner had a great -- speaker boehner had a great quote -- "i need this job
like i need a hole in the head." they will try to move forward. it will be very incremental. a lot of conservatives might be disappointed. host: what is the likelihood the republican party is going to explode in the next couple of months, the debt ceiling and all -- to implode in the next couple of months, that ceiling and all? guest: i think the party will survive. the president has said he will not negotiate. it will put republicans and a very tough position. -- in a very tough position. they will have to craft a real strategy, perhaps better strategy than they had on the fiscal cliff deal. host: independent caller. caller: boehner -- we are not
seeing a republican president for another 11 years, 12 years. obama will finish out his term, then hillary clinton will take another eight years. theo ain't going to help republicans. he is a cuban. latinos are going to go for a mexican -- you have to remember the cubans had kennedy and the russians and all that. though latinos would not follow rubio as they would a real latino -- the latinos would not follow rubio as they would a real latino. host: what was your first point about speaker boehner? caller: been needs to have a republican presidents -- he needs to have a republican president. guest: so many people were banking on mitt romney winning the presidential election. so much of what we have seen on
the fiscal cliff is a reaction to not having the power everyone expected or hoped for coming out of the 2012 election. there is a real question moving forward. i think your question about the spanish vote is an interesting one. immigration is likely to be a major issue. where are republicans going to go on that? where is senator rubio going to stand on that? will the league. -- will he lead the reform? host: when cathy mcmorris robert scott introduced the vote on -- when cathy mcmorris rodgers introduced the bovote -- guest: when she speaks, you are hearing a boehner ally speak. she does not say anything that john boehner would not say.
the leadership or cognizant they had to do something to expand the party, to reach out -- leadership are cognizant of a half to do something to expand the party -- the leadership are cognizant that they have to do something to expand the party. host: irma, you are next. caller: what i would like to say about boehner, he and cantor, they are not doing the will of the people of america. they are only -- from what i see, they are only doing the will for bootslack alec -- and the kochc -- brothers. none other republican jobs are hard. if they can only do the work for the people of the america and not for groups like, like i said, alec and --
host: we heard your point. think house republican leaders would argue with you that they have a belief in smaller government and lower taxes. what you're really going to see speaker boehner and leader cantor doing, trying to grapple with a small power they have in washington, trying to get something to happen. republicans did not want any tax rates to go up. they agreed that some rates could go up, above $400,000, $450,000. where is that compromise going to be on other issues? where are they going to be able to work with the president and the senate to get things done? i doubt that they will be able to stay on the sidelines. they want to get some work done, but they also want to win the battle. host: explain how boehner had a
plan b. he could not get his own party behind. that is not leading. they used to vote in lockstep. no more. guest: plan b was all about setting the threshold at a certain level, sending it back to the senate, and having some kind of consensus on rates. boehner did bring the senate to deal to the house -- the senate deal to the house and he got it through with democratic support. he was able to get it through the house relatively in time around the deadline. that is a political accomplishment. host: colleen in rutherford, new jersey, hi there. caller: i have a couple of comments. the big end-all was the sandy bill, when governor christie
went out and said that boehner did not return his phone calls. that was the end-all, do-all. he did not return a phone calls. -- the phone calls. there was a lot of uproar over that sandy bill. secondly, boehner and the leadership booted out the tea party, which was voted in in 2010. that got a lot of us aggravated. thirdly, let's not make the agenda about the republicans. let's -- we are falling into the trap of the left-wing media. the agenda is about obama and the senate. it is not about us little republicans. we should not fall into the trap that we are running around like chickens with our heads -- that we don't know what we are doing. we need to start putting the agenda on them.
they need to give us the agenda. host: all right. guest: i think your anecdote about the san the bill and the sandy vote is an interesting one -- the sandy bill and the sandy vote is an interesting one. this was a very tough vote for republicans. boehner pulled the sandy relief bill from the floor because he did not want to force republicans to vote on a deal so close to something else they did not like. you do not have to like the policy. i heard from others about how much of an uproar there was about this decision to pull the relief bill from the floor. he met with them the next day at 3:00. he decided to bring it back to the floor to have an agreement. that shows how boehner works. he's trying to give his conference room on a tugboat, not have back-to-back tough los -- on a tough vote, not have
back-to-back tough votes. >> there are fifth -- host: there are $51 billion less that they have to vote on -- left that they have to vote on. does he have the votes? guest: they will have to go line by line and discuss what really needs to happen for sandy relief. they will make an argument to the american people that this is not all necessary. what is necessary? how can we explain that better? host: it will be amended. if those provisions are taken out? guest: it will be a bloody, brutal, political fight. a lot of members of the northeast would not like this package to be touched at all. republicans are saying they will make a stand here. they will not just let all kinds of spending go through. host: "mr. costa, is speaker
boehner stuck with cantor or can he dump cantor?" guest: they have a close professional relationship. this is a conference that need the leadership to be working together. moving forward, they continue to be in a political corner. working together is a better solution. cantor is not saying much publicly against voter -- boehner. host: kentucky, independent caller. caller: that sort of answer my question. it seems like cantor goes behind boehner's back.
there's a lot of sacred -- secret stuff going around in the republican party. they need more -- to be more united. until that stops, i don't know how america is going to move forward. the other comment i want to make, too, talking about the left-wing media, that is correct. especially the "hannerty" show. it is programs like that that don't help. host: how about those comments that there is some back and forth behind the scenes that i don't know about -- we don'g
know about -- we don't know about? guest: there was no move to break with boehner, kantor, -- cantor, or mccarthy, the top three. cathy mcmorris rodgers, the boehner ally, beat out price. you saw, at that level, some fighting. boehner, eric cantor, mccarthy, they seem pretty safe. members may have a disagreement with certain decisions, but they think there is no one better to step up. ryan has not expressed any interest in challenging mccarthy. if a ryn -- it is only a ry an-like figure who could
challenge boehner. he does not seem to have an interest. host: jim, you are up next. caller: good morning. i have seen your guest on several programs. i am retired. i watch a lot of political programs. i just wonder -- i believe there is no way we are going to raise the debt ceiling. i think that is just idiocy -- no way we aren't going to raise the debt ceiling. i think that is just a easy to say that we will not. there are three factions -- inside the beltway, cable news, and the average american. i don't say i'm above average. they don't stay engaged at all.
thati'm really seeing is the republican party is not seeing the forest for the trees. the forest being the american people. the trees being boehner and those people. guest: use of the run-up to read -- you saw the runup. they lost some seats in the house. they did not win the presidency. this is perhaps a way to make cuts in specific ways, talk about this of the cuts. they have voted for the paul ryan but in the past -- talk about specific cuts. they have voted for the paul ryan budget in the past. see where the president is willing to go. republicans are not going to be
specific until they feel like the president and harry reid are willing to go a certain distance. host: you are next on the republican line in portsmouth. hi, tommy. caller: thanks for c-span. i went from the democratic party to the republican party in 2007. i got my children involved in local politics and campaigning and so forth. so, for boehner to really succeed, a lot of people like me that came under the conservative saw bothfiscal issues parties not really taking care of issues. i found that i was really alienated when i sent a lot of
time campaigning for ron paul, in the way the party is totally ignored him. -- just totally ignored him. it made me go back to being independent. what do you think it will take for boehner to bring more people into the tent? guest: it is important to remember that boehner lost his conference seat in the 1990's. it was only in 2006, once tom delay resigned, that boehner became the leader of the party again. as much as there is a lot of grumbling about his leadership, a lot of republicans feel like boehner has been able to stay in power and bring the party back to power, and they applaud that. ron paul is now out of congress,
the former presidential ca ndidate is no longer there. there are some acolytes in that tradition. both of them are -- broke with boehner during the latest speaker boehner. rand paul is in the senate. he is continuing the rand paul movement in many ways. he is now on the senate foreign relations committee. you will hear him talk more about the ron paul ideal foreign policy, less foreign aid, more conservative ideas about where to spend money, where to have troops. host: my apologies. coughing attack here. mitch mcconnell -- his role? guest: he is doing a lot. mitch mcconnell -- when there was really an impasse in the
fiscal cliff negotiation, he was able to call vice president biden and cut a deal. that's as a lot about mitch mcconnell's political abilities -- that says a lot about mitch mcconnell's political abilities. the house continues to be a mess. mitch mcconnell is the one who can get senate republicans working together with the white house to get something done. host: next, a caller from north carolina, a republican caller. caller: good morning. can you hear me? guest: yes. caller: i just want to make a comment in support of john boehner. this is coming from someone who -- i've just never really been in to politics. won i have observed is that -- one thing i have observed is that, when all is said and done,
mr. boehner was moving to lead his party vote the way they felt. he did not want to twist their arms or do things that i think are demeaning, when a politician will do whatever it takes to get his party members to march right behind him, whatever the outcome is going to be. he does hold his ground on that. the former speaker, the last guest made the remakr about -- remark about mr. boehner, about he did not support him quite as much as he did pelosi because she had that quality, that she could do that to keep her members behind her. it is like sausage-making and
all that. a lot of not-real-nice things happen. the way some of the parties can keep their whatever's going on in the background in the boardroom. i just admire that quality in any one who respects their fellow -- guest: boehner's style is one i have enjoyed covering for the past few years. republicans have outlawed earmarks. they have banned those as any part of the whipping process. all boehner can do is make an argument. he has nothing to offer except some subcommittee chairmanships, that kind of thing, which is not much for many members. you have seen boehner using a soft touch. he does not try to pressure them
too hard. it has been both a blessing and curse for him. on big boats, he does not have -- big bovotes, he does not have that hammer. he has engendered really great, warm friendships with many members, and i think that is part of why he stays in power. host: an independent caller. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. the republican party has become strictly racist. that is causing a whole lot of problems with the average american, because we can see it. what they fail to realize is that they do anything for money. the republican party shows more of an interest -- whatever it takes to get it done for the interest of the so-called lobbyists or big money. and we have become a nation of
soulless individuals who do not care about the earth or other human beings. thanks for c-span. guest: i think your question about race, i would disagree with. i don't think the republican party is racist. i disagree with most of your other points. i think your risk -- or frustration is reflective of what i heard while i was on the campaign trail -- your frustration is reflective of what i heard while i was on the campaign trail in 2012. it is a fair concern to have. to make such a broad generalization about any party, democratic or republican, is a tad unfair. host: marcus, democratic caller, stone mountain, georgia. caller: good morning. i have a question about boehner and the party of no. where is he trying to go with this? for the last caller, about ron
paul, your magazine called him an arabist. talking about the golden rule of foreign policy -- what do you guys want to achieve in 2016 besides war with iran? what do you guys plan to do when you get your reactionary candidate in office? guest: bill kristol is the editor of "the weekly standard," another conservative journal of opinion. i work for "national review." ron paul question is a very fair one to raise. some people in the house, rand paul in the senate -- the movement -- i was at the sun dome in florida where he had his
last rally. that libertarian streak of the republican party is going to continue. you see it in house primaries across the country. perhaps the tea party reassert and reevaluate where it's going to go -- reasserts and reevaluates where it is going to go. i think he will continue to seek candidates inspired by ron paul -- you will continue to see candidates inspired by ron paul. caller: my comment is -- obviously, we have a stalemate between republicans and democrats. i believe boehner's this job right now is to further any jobs -- boehner's biggest right now is to further any deals, to make deals happen, and stop the stalemate, the line in the sand. i'm sick of hearing that social security is an entitlement.
we paid for that. i agree that welfare is an entitlement. if we cut the spending that is not under the federal directives of the constitution -- 90% of what the fed's spend would not be spent -- the feds spend would not be spent if we followed our constitution and did what was best for the majority of the people. i think boehner's biggest job is to broker deals and make them happen. guest: it will be hard to broker deals. before the speaker votes, he was trying to get some conservative support -- speaker vote, he was trying to get some conservative support. he went before house republicans and said, this has not been working out. from now on, in the 113th congress, as i move forward, i'm not going to have any more private, closed-four meetings with the president.
-- closed-door meetings with the president. he will still take a call from the president, but he's going to have to work more closely with house republicans. where is my conference? are they going to be with me? it's not as easy as pulling up the president and saying, let's make a deal -- as calling up the president and saying, let's make a deal. caller: hello. thank you for c-span. we pay five of -- $5 billion a year for congressman and all their perks -- congressmen and all their perks. adding it would be wise to make congress -- i think it would be wise to make progressmen work for -- i think it would be wise to make congressmen work for
minimum wage. it is not a living wage. they would raise it to a living wage and that would save money. guest: that is a funny thing to raise. i think a lot of people in the country would be fine with congress making a minimum wage. it's not going to happen. they all make over $100,000 here. but they are very aware there are many americans who share their feelings about how much they are paid and how many perks they get. president obama has an executive order on federal pay. i talked to a lot of members who said they wanted nothing to do with a pay raise right now. the country is so divided. people are so angry that in our districts and are -- our states. host: and the approval ratings. are not ratings g-- and the approval ratings are not great. guest: they are abysmal. a lot of congressmen are driving
older cars. they sleep in their offices. host: barb, next, fort myers, florida. caller: i feel that mr. boehner is trying to hurt -- herd cats. guest: indeed. caller: because the individuals are not really interested in the united states of america. guest: well, i don't think it is because they are disinterested in the united states of america. i call the boehner's brother. when he told me he -- he told me about growing up in ohio with his brother. he said john boehner was the type of guy who knew how to throw people out of bars, he knew how to take a tough line, but he was not obsessed with being a leader. herding cats is a fine way to say it. boehner comes to congress in
1990. he was a soldier for newt gingrich. he has been through up and downs. i don't think he wants to be here for life. i think he wants to try to get as much as possible on spending cuts and reform, then maybe he will just say goodbye. host: margaret is watching is from louisiana, independent caller. caller: boehner was on national tv when they were going to shut down the government. he said they did not get their checks. i thought, we got our checks, they got their checks. they did not shut down the government. it was all a ploy. they should all go on obama care. instead of being able to go to bethesda and the best hospitals in the world. see how we are living. they are just taking too much from all of us.
thank you. have a nice day. guest: i think john boehner has a lot of challenges ahead of him. but this is a guy ready for the challenges. wakes up every day very early. i see him at a diner on capitol hill. he is always at breakfast before dawn. he has a tough spot with his guards and ability -- with his caucus. how will he deal with harry reid and the senate? according to politico, they have a very hostile relationship. regardless of what happens between boehner and obama or mccarthy and abide and, eventually, the house and senate are going to have to work together -- mccarthy and biden, eventually, the house and senate are going to have to work together. host: you are on the air. caller: i am kind of confused
with speaker boehner and his republicans and this thing about immigration reform. i don't see a change. i don't see they are doing anything about immigration reform. shouldn't he help people to stay in this country and get them to where they can pay taxes and help this country? see himbecause i don't doing anything. . guest: i think there will not be a large-scale reform. we saw that collapsed in 2007. what you're seeing is republicans on capitol hill are talking about, at least in january, it is moving forward on people who are educated or foreign-born, who came here and got a ph.d., for example. they seem like they are willing